inquiry to permanent barracks, in the erection and repairs of which, the grossest abuses were committed, and which still were in general incapable of affording any thing like comfortable accommodation.

The Secretary at War stated, that Atkins had an opportunity of defending himself before the barrack-master-general.

After a few words from Mr. Paull, Mr. Hobhouse, and Mr. Bastard, the motion was agreed to.

Mr. Robson did not suppose the Secretary at War capable of dismissing the barrack-master alluded to, or any other man, without reasons suflicient in his own mind to justify the act. He had no disposition whatever of imputing any thing culpable to the right honourable secretary. The honourable member proceeded to state the object of his motion, which was to save the public money; and he was satisfied that he could suggest a mode of preventing the expenditure in this department of no less than 500,000l. a year. After a few other preliminary observations, the honourable member proposed the following

motion:

"That there be laid before this House a return of the canteens, or houses for vending beer and liquors, which have been set up at the several buildings rented or hired by government, and used as barracks, or places for lodging, or containing officers and soldiers of the army, or of persons attached to the army: That the said return do include every such canteen in the whole of Great Britain, existing between the 1st of January 1793, and the 24th of Juuc 1806. That the said return he exhibited in eight columns, placed in the order, and containing the several heads, here following: viz. 1, The county, parish, place, or station, in alphabetical order, in which the canteen is, or was situ ate: 24, The date of the year, month, and day of letting each canteen respectively; Sd, The name and rank of the person, or persons, who let the canteen: 1th, The nume of the person or persons who rent, or rented the canteen : 5th, The weekly, or annual rent of the canteen: 6th, The name and rank of the person or persons, through whose hands the rent has been received on the part of government: 7th, The name, or phrase, descriptive of the building so let as a canteen: 8th, The number of non-commissioned picers and meu generally quartered or lodged in the seve 452.

ral

ral buildings, used as barracks, to which the canteen is, or has been attached."

Mr. Paull, who wished to go into an explanation of what he stated upon the former motion, but was prevented by the Speaker, seconded the motion.

After some remarks from Mr. Windham, Mr. Rose, and General Fitzpatrick,

Mr. Robson, in reply, stated that the barracks at San down formed a nest for smugglers, in which beer and spirits were sold without payment of duty, and asserted that the rents for canteens, of which very little reached the government, would pay' the whole rent of the temporary barracks.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. Robson then rose and said, that there was nów no occasion for him to say any thing to preface the motion which he was about to submit to the House. He was however tempted to read some extracts from the paper which he held in his hand (the memorial of Mr. John Pritchard), but they were so scandalous that he thought it might be as well to forbear. There was one, however, which was deserving of the particular attention of the House. Mrs. Parker, it appeared, a favoured friend of Major Lewis, took a house, the property of Mr. Barton, of Newport, for a family, from London, as she said, at the rent of 501. a year. By the advice of Major Lewis she let this house as a mess-room, and lodgings for officers, at 70%. a year, though it was of no use for one-third part of the time for which it was taken. The owner remonstrated with her for the trick which she had played him, but she replied, that every body was robbing government, and she was resolved to have a little in the scramble. The motion which he was about to make was, for an account of the manner in which the manure of the cavalry barracks was disposed of. The money derived from this might pay the rent of the barracks. He concluded by moving,

That there be laid before this House, an account of all the money received, on the part of government, for dung, ashes, dust, straw, sweepings, or other things, being ar ticles of manure, and arising from the several buildings rented or hired by government, and used as barracks, or places for quartering, or lodging of officers, soldiers, or horses of the army :---That the said account do embrace all the sums on such score received, in the whole of Great Bri

tain,

tain, between the 1st of January 1793, and the 24th of June 1806-And that the said account be exhibited in seven columns, placed in the order, and containing the several heads here following, viz.-1st. The parish, place, or station, in alphabetical order; 2d, The date of the year, month, and day, when such article or articles were begun to be sold as aforesaid; 3d, The name or names of the persons to whom sold; 4th, The sum, or sums received; 5th, The name or names of the persons through whose hands the said sums have been received on the part of the public; 6th, The time when such sale ceased (if so), stating the cause of cessation; 7th, The number of non-commissioned officers and men, and the number of horses generally quartered, or lodged at each station respectively.

This motion was rejected.

Mr. Windham said that if the honourable gentleman behind him (Mr. Paull) wished now to state the misrepresentation to which he alluded, he believed that, though not strictly regular, he might be allowed to do it.

Mr. Paull said that he did not think it necessary to trouble the House any further on the subject at present.

A message from the Lords stated their lordships' assent to the Bloomsbury-square improvement bill, the insolvent debtors' bill, the Nabob of the Carnatic's debts bill, the Irish schools bill, and slave trade shipping bill.

MILITIA OFFICERS' PAY BILL.

Mr. Windham moved the third reading of the militiaofficers' pay bill.

Mr. Perceval observed, that the reason why he had given notice, the preceding day, of his intention to take the sense of the House on the third reading that day, was with a view to have a fuller attendance; the material objection to the bill, which he had before stated, was the lateness of the period at which it was brought forward. Considering that the militia had till now been on the same footing, as to pay, with the army; that most of the militia officers were now absent on other duties; that not one of those who remained had voted with ministers on this question, while several voted against them; and that two servants of the public, the one paymaster of the forces (Temple) and the other a person belonging to the ordnance, both officers of the militia, had opposed the bill, he thought the House ought to pause before it assented to it. He was sorry that he did not sce

those

those persons now present. But still he must give as much opposition to this impolitic measure as he could. He had already stated the inexpediency of bringing forward such a measure at this late period of the session. The only argument which was urged for departing from the established system was the point of economy, which, in this instance, was quite paltry, and setting the lateness of the period out of the question, it was not such as to make it worth while, on this account, to run the risk of giving dissatisfaction to the militia officers. But when we are at war, and in possession of the services of these men, it was impolitic to give them dissatisfaction; and we had it from the militia officers themselves, that this increase would do so, not on account of being refused the additional pay, but on account of the invidious distinction made between them and the line. He thought the objection of an honourable colonel (Bastard) very strong, when he stated that injustice was done to the militia, for when they entered they might, as the law stood, take it for granted that they should always be kept on a footing with the line, and might in justice now claim their discharge. When the prize-money was taken from the seamen, it was said they had no right upon this to claim their discharge, as they had been pressed. He did not think that the engagements even with them should be violated on that account, but this however did not apply to the present case. He then went on to state that he saw no reason why the seven pence a day given to the soldiers in the line who had served seven years, should not be extend, ed to the militia. At all events, it ought to be extended to the non-commissioned officers, who were on the same footing as those in the line. He also objected to the bill, because it gave ministers the power of doing, as they pleased on this subject, either to give or withhold pay at their option, and this was the reason why an honourable colonel had said that it put the militia more in the power of the Crown. This measure totally altered the nature of the militia system, and was a breach of parliamentary faith. The right honourable gentleman seemed indeed to admit this to a certain degree. It was a breach of faith, but a little one. He was somewhat like the lady who owned that she had had a natural child, but then it was a very little one. This measure ought at least to have been proposed in time of peace. He concluded by moving that the word "now" be left out, and that the words this day three months" be substituted.

Lord Folkestone, though he supposed it would be a material objection to the gentlemen on the other side, that he was not a militia officer, must still assert his opinion on the 'subject. He maintained that there was no reason whatever for any dissatisfaction on the part of the militia officers, for they suffered no injustice. The field officers and captains were, by law, required to have certain qualifications, which rendered this additional pay unnecessary. Besides, they could not reasonably expect to be put exactly on a footing with officers of the line, who gained rank through toils and dangers, while they immediately attained their rank on account of their property. The old mistaken principle had been departed from already, and, besides, it was a quite different service He would, therefore, support the bill.

Sir W. Elford put the noble lord right as to the point of rising gradually to the higher ranks. This was the case in many regiments of militia as well as the line. He himself, and several others of the higher officers in his regiment, had been subalterns. It was dangerous to innovate on the relations between the different kinds of force when there was no ground for it but this paltry economy.

Mr. Alderman Prinsep was sorry to oppose any measure of government relative to the national defence, but when a measure was proposed affecting the constitutional rights of any body, and with such clauses as these, leaving so much to the discretion of ministers, he could not give his assent to it. The period at which it was brought forward was also an objection, and to this was added the dissatisfaction which would be felt by the militia officers at a distinction of this sort. This was very impolitic in time of war.

Mr. Secretary Windham said, he was not sorry that the gentlemen on the other side had taken an opportunity of renewing this discussion, as he felt convinced, that the more the subject was discussed, the more it would be generally approved of. The lateness of the session was, to be sure, an argument that told well in so thin a House; but it should be recollected, that this was not a substantive ar gument, and there ought to be some other reason assigned for opposing any measure. If it were contended, that there was any great constitutional principle, which required that. the two services should be exactly placed on the same footing, he must deny that doctrine. There were already distinctions between the services sufficiently marked. The regular officers had half-pay, when the militia had not;